Should meat come with a warning label?

In the news this week there has been a lot of debate on whether or not meat (in particular bacon and red meat) should be labelled with a warning labl similar to those found on cigarette packets. Bacon has been focused on in particular because

Durham University academics tested alerts on 1,000 people and found that the warning labels persuaded up to a tenth of participants to choose a fish or veggie option instead. Warnings that eating meat ‘contributes to climate change’ or ‘poor health’ were shown to be the most effective messages to include. Health-related labels reduced meat meal choices by 8.8 per cent, climate labels by 7.4 per cent, and pandemic labels by 10 per cent. However, the researchers themselves said there was no statistically significant difference between the focus of the different labels (such as health, pandemics, or climate change), meaning all would have a similar affect. Whilst it is arguably a very small sample study, it is somewhat encouraging to see that something as small as a label can have an impact on consumer choices.

It is also interesting to note that this is not just a UK conversation. A study conducted by Madre Brava asked 600 doctors and dietitians in five European countries about the continent’s meat-eating habits, and found that 91% of health professionals think average meat consumption exceeds health levels in Europe, and 84% believe this is a public health concern in need of reform. 95% of the respondent’s put the blame on both government and industry, and called for red and processed meat products to carry warning labels about their health impacts.

I think this is an interesting discussion to have following all the debate that has been ongoing around whether or not vegan sausages can be called ‘sausages’ or not. In that debate, transparency for the consumer is deemed to be the most important factor, and that consumers hould know exactly what they are buying based on the information on the product packaging. Would this argument not also be used for this new debate? Of course the industry will want to pick and choose when transparency is important and when it is not, but as a society, transparency is transparency. Realistically, even with the warnings and graphic photos that come with cigarette packets, people still smoke. But smokers know the risks when they buy the product, and that is arguably the most important aspect of consumerism – that customers can make an informed choice. So why should meat be any different?

What do you guys think? Do you think red and processed meats should come with a warning label on them? Do you think there is a limit as to how much transparency should be given to consumers?

T xxx